TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH JOSEPH O’CONNELL—Resumed
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, continuing with the matter of grants by the Robert Marshall Foundation, of which you were one of the trustees, it is noted that grants totaling $30,366.85 were made to you. Can you explain that?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes. Those would be in my opinion the total amount that I received for traveling expenses, for meetings of the foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean, then, no specific grant was actually made to you?
Mr. O’Connell. There was no actual specific grant made to me. The provisions of the will, as I remember them, provided that the trustees are to receive no compensation except their traveling expenses to and from meetings of the trustees of the foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. I note that there was introduced into the record during the Canwell hearings, check No. 94 bearing date of October 2, 1942, drawn on the funds of the Robert Marshall Foundation in the amount of $150 made payable to you.
Have you any explanation to make of that item?
Mr. O’Connell. I am sure that, if I knew the meeting date of the foundation at that time, we also had a practice when a meeting of the foundation was called by the trustees, if the financial situation of the trustee involved was such that he needed an advance for expenses to come to the meeting, an advance was made in the amount of probably $150 or so, but it was always expended for either transportation or meals and hotel and so on, while in attendance at the meetings of the foundation.
Mr. Tavenner. You testified yesterday that in May of 1949 you procured a grant of $4,000 for the use of the Northwest Pacific Labor School.
Mr. O’Connell. Of course I think that ought to be—I personally couldn’t procure the grant. The grant was voted by at least a majority of the trustees for the Pacific Northwest Labor School.
Mr. Tavenner. Was the grant actually made through your efforts?
Mr. O’Connell. I advocated that the grant be made, yes.
Mr. Tavenner. And Daschbach interviewed you with regard to it before you presented it?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. Was any part of that grant or any other grant used for the benefit of the Northwest edition of the Daily People’s World?
Mr. O’Connell. As far as I know, certainly not. I mean the grants were made to the organization and certainly no part of that grant as far as I would know, what actually Daschbach may have done with it later I wouldn’t be able to specifically say.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you learn anything about it, even from a second-hand source?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I never learned, never had any information that it was used for any other purpose.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether any part of the $4,000 grant or any other grant from the foundation was used for the benefit of the Civil Rights Congress in the State of Washington?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know whether it was, that grant or any other grant. I know there was some argument and some consultation with me by Mr. Daschbach about it and I was very specific—I think that was before the grant was made—and I was very specific with him that no part of the grant would be used for any other purpose than that for which it was made. That was the Pacific Northwest Labor School.
Mr. Tavenner. Was John Daschbach an official of the Civil Rights Congress in Seattle?
Mr. O’Connell. If I remember correctly, I left Seattle, I don’t remember when the Civil Rights Congress was organized in Seattle, but as I remember when I left Seattle Daschbach was then functioning as head or director of the Washington Civil Rights Congress.
Mr. Tavenner. Did he hold that position at the time he spoke to you about the use of proceeds of the grant for the Civil Rights Congress?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t think I would be able to say whether he was actually in the position at that time. I can’t recall. I remember at the time that he asked me about the grant they were closing out, they were terminating this Seattle Labor School and they had borrowed money from particularly various labor union members about the town. I remember I think it was either Frank or Fred Carlson to whom they owed money and other people, I can’t remember precisely who they were now, but anyway the representations made to me in connection with the grant were they were trying to close out the labor school and pay off their debts and pay I think back salaries that were owed to Mr. Daschbach and to some others there, I don’t know who.
Mr. Tavenner. Was John Daschbach known to you to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I never knew John Daschbach was a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Had you heard that he was a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I had never heard that he was a member of the Communist Party. I actually, my first, I think the first time I met Mr. Daschbach was in Spokane and I think he was attending Gonzaga University, a Jesuit university in Spokane, and as far as I knew personally, I didn’t know he was a Communist, didn’t know whether he was or was not.
Mr. Tavenner. You are aware now, are you not, that he has been identified by a number of witnesses as a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I couldn’t say that I know that precisely; but I do know he was indicted as a Smith Act defendant in Seattle.
Mr. Tavenner. And convicted.
Mr. O’Connell. And convicted. I don’t know whether he is in prison now.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall what individual it was in the National Lawyers Guild who solicited an award from the trustees?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, my best recollection as far as that would be concerned is that it was Mr. Martin Popper, who was an attorney in New York.
Mr. Tavenner. Did the executive secretary of the National Lawyers Guild take any part in representations or solicitations regarding the grant?
Mr. O’Connell. I think Mr. Silberstein (Robert J. Silberstein), I wouldn’t remember correctly. It is hard for me to remember. I would say Mr. Silberstein actually probably prepared the actual application that was made to the foundation for a grant.
Mr. Tavenner. Did he confer with you about the matter?
Mr. O’Connell. I can never even remember Bob Silberstein talking to me about a grant for the Lawyers Guild. As I remember the particular grant, it was made in connection with labor work that the guild was doing, and Mr. Martin Popper, as I remember it, was the one who actually made the presentation, at least I know he talked to me and I think to some of the other trustees.
Mr. Tavenner. The New World issue of March 25, 1948, reflects that Jerry O’Connell launched a series of three special forum programs at the Pacific Northwest Labor School to discuss our foreign policy and our fight for peace. Do you recall that?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I don’t recall that. I know I never made any speeches at Seattle Labor School.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any connection with the presentation of a special forum program at the Seattle Labor School?
Mr. O’Connell. I certainly cannot recall any. I don’t remember ever speaking at the Seattle Labor School or being involved in any forum. Was that a forum I was supposed to conduct?
Mr. Tavenner. The article says you launched a series of three forum programs.
Mr. O’Connell. It says it is on foreign policy?
Mr. Tavenner. That the subject was Our Foreign Policy and Our Fight for Peace.
Mr. O’Connell. I certainly don’t remember any such thing. Practically all the time I was in the State of Washington I was engaged either as executive secretary of the Democratic Party or was executive secretary of the Progressive Party and my particular work was in political organization and political work and I don’t want to say I did or didn’t but I certainly now don’t recall any such series of lectures.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, you have advised us that you became chairman of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill during the year 1948.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you aware of a special fund drive conducted by the Communist Party in 1947 for the purpose of fighting anticipated congressional action relating to the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I had no knowledge of any such—what was it a fund?
Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Blauvelt testified before the Committee on Un-American Activities within the past 3 weeks on that subject. She was a police detective for the city of New York and was a member of the Communist Party and served the New York City Police Department as an underground agent for a period of more than 8 years before her identity was discovered. Mrs. Blauvelt testified for nearly a week.
In the course of this testimony she stated that upon the agitation for a bill relating to communism in the House of Representatives the Communist Party hurriedly made a fund drive and that they sought to raise a total of $225,000 for the purpose of fighting the opposition to communism. Within 25 days the Communist Party raised $250,000.
During the period that you were chairman of this committee to defeat the Mundt bill—that was over the period from 1948 until some time in 1950 or 1951——
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; but it ought to be explained that in 1948 the only functioning of the committee was from a period I would say probably in June of 1948 until the adjournment of Congress, which was in that year I think, because of the party conventions, the national conventions, was adjourned quite early.
I know there was probably, I was here probably a month or a little over a month in that connection, and then I did not—all during 1949 there was no functioning of the committee whatsoever, as I remember it, and I think the first time I came down in 1950 was, I would say, about March of 1950 and I was here until about maybe the early part of June, when I returned to Montana to take the bar exams I have already talked about.
Mr. Tavenner. As you stated, you came back here in July and were here for a period of time?
Mr. O’Connell. I think the latter part of July or first part of August and I was here until the Congress adjourned sine die about the middle of September.
Mr. Tavenner. That is correct.
To complete my question: Did the Communist Party give your committee any financial assistance at any time during the period from 1948 to 1950 while you were chairman of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. Of my knowledge, I don’t know of any assistance that the Communist Party gave to the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill. I, of course received, all I received, I think I received $125 a week salary, if I remember correctly. I had no charge of funds or the expenditure of funds.
Mr. Tavenner. Was that salary of $125 a week paid by the Progressive Party?
Mr. O’Connell. In 1948 I think the salary was paid by the Progressive Party, but I am not too sure.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you not so certify on the reports made to the Clerk of the House of Representatives?
Mr. O’Connell. If I did, that was so.
Mr. Willis. For the record, Mr. Tavenner, state the substance of the Mundt bill.
Mr. Tavenner. The Mundt bill is that section of the Internal Security Act of 1950 which requires the registration of the Communist Party and registration of Communist fronts. There is also written into that bill the substance of what was known as the Wood bill, which dealt with persons employed in defense contracts. The remaining part of the bill related to immigration and naturalization matters and is known as a different section of the bill.
Mr. O’Connell. Then I think there was the detention camp features added in the Senate.
Mr. Tavenner. There are no detention camp features to the bill.
Mr. O’Connell. In the bill that was finally passed in the Senate I think Senator Kilgore and some of the other Democratic Senators offered an amendment to the bill or a provision that provided for——
Mr. Tavenner. In conference between the Representatives of the Senate and the House, it was agreed to accept the House bill exactly as prepared and submitted by this committee, which was done.
How were you employed at the time you first became chairman of this committee?
Mr. O’Connell. I was the executive secretary of the Progressive Party in the State of Washington.
Mr. Tavenner. I believe you have told us that Mr. Robert J. Silberstein, executive secretary of the National Lawyers Guild, was one of the official family of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill.
Mr. O’Connell. My recollection is he was secretary. I don’t want to be held to it but I am pretty sure he was the secretary of the committee.
Mr. Tavenner. Was he a person known to you to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I never knew Bob Silberstein to be a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Scherer. I didn’t get the last answer.
Mr. O’Connell. No; I never knew or did not know that Bob Silberstein was a member of the Communist Party and I don’t know it now.
Mr. Tavenner. Had you heard he was a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I had not heard that he was.
Mr. Tavenner. Up until this present time you have not heard?
Mr. O’Connell. I have not heard that Bob Silberstein is a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, this committee heard 2 witnesses from California in 1952, both of them attorneys at law, one of them a professor at a law university, who testified to the effect that Mr. Silberstein was a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Silberstein was subpenaed before this committee and confronted with the testimony of those two lawyers and he refused to testify on the subject, claiming that to do so might tend to incriminate him.
Mr. O’Connell. Just for the record, Mr. Tavenner, I, of course, haven’t read all the proceedings of this committee; I have not had available to me the transcript of the hearings of the committee, what some lawyers in California may have testified about Bob Silberstein in 1952, I don’t know anything about.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you aware of the fact that the National Lawyers Guild has been cited by this committee as a Communist-front organization?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I am.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the National Lawyers Guild?
Mr. O’Connell. I am a member, have been and am now a member of the National Lawyers Guild.
Mr. Scherer. When did you last have any connection with Robert J. Silberstein?
Mr. O’Connell. In 1950, sir. In 1950 we had occasional meetings in connection with the Mundt bill at that time and Mr. Silberstein attended those meetings and I am pretty sure he was the secretary of the organization.
Mr. Scherer. Was that the last time you saw him?
Mr. O’Connell. That is the last time I have seen Bob Silberstein.
Mr. Scherer. Have you had any communication with him since?
Mr. O’Connell. I of course receive a membership card in the National Lawyers Guild and I think it is signed by Bob Silberstein as executive secretary, or executive secretary of the National Lawyers Guild.
Mr. Scherer. Is that his position today?
Mr. O’Connell. My understanding is he has resigned, at the last convention of the National Lawyers Guild, that he resigned and was replaced by somebody else.
Mr. Scherer. Do you know what he is doing today?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I don’t have any idea.
Mr. Scherer. Do you know where he lives?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, the last I knew he was living in New York. He actually, I think, comes from New Jersey and I think he is married to a banker’s daughter who comes from wealthy family, if I remember correctly, in New Jersey.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee the circumstances under which the Progressive Party contributed your services to the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, in connection with the—there were hearings being held in the Senate, as I stated yesterday, by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1948. I think those hearings were being presided over by former Senator Ferguson and Senator Langer of North Dakota was a member of the committee.
If I remember correctly, we received a communication from the national office of the Progressive Party, I think particularly from Mr. C. B. Baldwin, who was then executive vice chairman, if I remember rightly, asking us to send, the Progressive Party of the State of Washington, to send somebody to Washington to testify at this hearing before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee, and I was delegated by the Progressive Party in the State of Washington to come to testify at that hearing. I also think Mr. Russell Fluent, who was chairman of the Progressive Party at that time—he was also incumbent Democratic State treasurer of the State of Washington, was also a delegate, and I think the two of us came down here to testify and I said yesterday while we were waiting to testify the hearings had been going on several days, Senator Ferguson adjourned the hearings and Senator Langer—a considerable number of the people there were upset because they had waited around to be heard and there was considerable protestation, as I remember, about the hearings being adjourned and so Senator Langer asked the people who had not testified to come to his office or, rather, his committee room.
As I remember then he was chairman of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads of the Senate, and we adjourned to that particular committee room and had a meeting there. I can’t remember now the precise details of the situation, whether it was Senator Langer or somebody in the group or who it was who suggested a committee ought to be formed to defeat the bill. I know Senator Langer suggested I become chairman of the committee. He had known me as a member of Congress and I have known him for a long time. North Dakota and Montana are very close together and our political situations are quite similar and so on.
So it was at that meeting it was decided I should become chairman, that I should stay to see what could be done to lobby and so forth, to see what could be done to defeat the legislation. I think arrangements were then made with the Progressive Party in the State of Washington for me to stay down here during the month or so that was necessary and to have my salary advanced by the Progressive Party.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the occasion for your return to Washington in March of 1950?
Mr. O’Connell. As I remember, the legislation had again been reintroduced. It had not cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1948 by the time of congressional adjournment, then, but I think the legislation was reintroduced in the next session of Congress and if I remember correctly it passed, it had already passed the House and it was pending in the Senate, and hearings were being held and were to be held in the Senate in March of 1950.
I came on down. I don’t remember whether, I can’t remember whether it was Mr. Silberstein or Mr. Waybur (Bruce Waybur), who contacted me and it was anticipated at the time I would have to spend about a month down there lobbying.
Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a copy of a telegram which the committee procured under subpena duces tecum from the Western Union, dated July 18, 1950, addressed to you, which reads as follows:
Greetings. Essential you take first plane or train here.
It shows it was charged to the National Lawyers Guild and signed “Silberstein.” The telegram was charged to the National Lawyers Guild. Will you examine it, please.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, sir. I think that is the——
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the telegram in evidence and ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 2” for identification purposes only and to be made a part of the committee files.
Mr. Willis. It is so ordered.
Mr. O’Connell. What is the date?
Mr. Tavenner. July 18, 1950.
Did you then advise Mr. Silberstein that you would require advancement of funds for the purpose of making the trip?
Mr. O’Connell. As I remember, I had been down here, as I said earlier, from March until I returned to Montana to take the bar examinations, and then I was out there in the State of Montana getting ready to establish my law practice and I got this wire from Mr. Silberstein to come back, or to come on down. Now what arrangements were made to send me funds, I don’t know whether Mr. Silberstein——
Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a second telegram addressed to you under date of July 26, 1950, signed “Silberstein,” and charged to the account of the National Lawyers Guild, and obtained by this committee in the same manner as the former telegram, reading as follows:
Sorry funds not available here. Proceed other plans.
Does that refresh your recollection?
Mr. O’Connell. What this would mean, as far as I can recollect now, was that of course I informed him I had no funds to come down here, to fly or whatever it was, and that unless I had them I would not be able to come and would stay out in the State of Montana.
Mr. Tavenner. What was meant by that part of the telegram which suggested that you “proceed other plans?”
Mr. O’Connell. The thing, I am sure I can’t remember now but I am sure I told Mr. Silberstein that I had no funds of my own to advance to come down to Washington and do any kind of work down here, and that unless I got funds I would not be able to come.
Mr. Tavenner. That explanation would not be responsive to the language of the telegram. The telegram says “proceed other plans.”
Mr. O’Connell. It says, “Proceed other plans.”
Mr. Tavenner. “Proceed other plans.”
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. What other plans?
Mr. O’Connell. As far as I was concerned, I am sure I had notified them unless there were funds sent to me I could not come down here at all.
Mr. Tavenner. Would it be logical that Mr. Silberstein would tell you to proceed by other plans, when to adopt your construction it would mean that that just meant for you to remain where you were?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, actually, I imagine if I had all of the correspondence or wires here I could probably give you the full and complete story. That is way back, almost 5 years ago. It is hard for me to recall but I am pretty sure that what I told him if I didn’t have the funds, whatever work I would have to do on the bill it would have to be done from the State of Montana.
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence, and asked that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit 3,” for identification purposes only, and be made a part of the committee files.
Mr. Willis. It is so ordered.
Mr. Tavenner. On July 28, 1950, 2 days later, there was another telegram signed “Silberstein” directed to you and charged to the National Lawyers Guild, which reads as follows:
Means now available for travel. Telephone me collect.
Will you examine that telegram, please, sir?
Mr. O’Connell. What is the date on the second one?
Mr. Tavenner. 26th.
Mr. O’Connell. I think this would be in line with what I had said. I told him there was no way I could possibly come without funds.
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 4” for identification purposes only, and to be made a part of the committee files.
Mr. Willis. It is so ordered.
Mr. Tavenner. How were the funds referred to in Silberstein’s telegram made available to you?
Mr. O’Connell. I just don’t remember, but I am pretty sure that Mr. Silberstein sent me the funds.
Mr. Tavenner. Were those funds, funds of the National Lawyers Guild?
Mr. O’Connell. I really couldn’t say whether they were the funds of the National Lawyers Guild or not. As I remember, there was some confusion between the guild and Mr. Waybur of the national committee about the funds. I think Silberstein sent these wires out of the National Lawyers Guild office and then, if I remember, later collected from the national committee for them, the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill.
But as I remember, my best recollection is I got the funds from Mr. Silberstein. I have a recollection, they could have been Lawyers Guild funds or could have been Mr. Silberstein’s personal check, I am not sure.
Mr. Tavenner. When you returned to Washington did you establish a headquarters for the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. If I remember correctly, Mr. Silberstein was taking his vacation at that time. I think a month or 6 weeks’ vacation. He turned over to us the use of the field offices here in Washington.
Mr. Tavenner. The National Lawyers Guild offices in Washington?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. What address was that? Do you recall?
Mr. O’Connell. The thing that comes to my mind was 918 or 920 K Street.
Mr. Tavenner. Wasn’t it 902 20th Street NW.?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I think that is right.
Mr. Tavenner. As a matter of fact, hadn’t that been the headquarters since 1948 of the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. No. Originally we set up offices in a building downtown on—what is the main street? Is it E Street, where the theaters are all located?
Mr. Tavenner. Could that be F Street?
Mr. O’Connell. F Street. I guess it is. If I remember correctly, the building is the Atlantic Building or some such name, and we had offices there during 1948, and early—I know offices before I returned to Montana were also in the same building in 1950.
Mr. Tavenner. When did you first occupy the offices of the National Lawyers Guild as the headquarters of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. I am sure when I came back after July 28, I probably got there—I can’t remember—either the very last part of July or the early part of August.
Mr. Tavenner. Now, prior to 1950 had you registered as a lobbyist for the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill with the Clerk of the House of Representatives?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Did anyone else register with you for the same purpose?
Mr. O’Connell. I couldn’t say for sure, but I think Mr. Waybur did. I don’t know.
Mr. Tavenner. Let me refresh your recollection. Our investigation shows Mr. John B. Stone registered with you on the same day.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I remember he was doing press work, press relations for the committee.
Mr. Tavenner. Who selected Mr. Stone to register?
Mr. O’Connell. Who selected him to register?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes.
Mr. O’Connell. I imagine we had a discussion in the office and decided that whoever was involved would have to register with the——
Mr. Tavenner. You had a discussion? You and who else?
Mr. O’Connell. Myself, Mr. Silberstein, Mr. Waybur, Mr. Stone, and at different times some of the other people who are listed on the committee stationery there. I can’t remember just which one.
Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Stone known to you to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. No; he was not. His father had been the dean of the school of journalism out at the University of Montana.
Mr. Tavenner. Does that mean the son can’t be an active member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t want to argue with you, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. Tavenner. Why present that as a reason?
Mr. O’Connell. I wanted to tell you how I knew Mr. Stone and how I happened to know him. He, of course, was a Montanan, and I knew him that way, and I knew him when I was in Congress. I think he was in the press gallery when I was in Congress for the Federated Press, if I remember correctly, but I certainly had no knowledge that Mr. Stone was a member of the Communist Party and have no such knowledge, even at this moment.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show at this point Mrs. Mary Stalcup Markward at the instance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation entered the Communist Party in the city of Washington and served there in an undercover capacity and by reason of her diligence in her work she was elevated finally to the position of treasurer of the Communist Party for the District of Columbia.
She appeared before this committee and testified and among other things identified members of the newspaper club of the Communist Party in the District of Columbia. Of those persons identified as members of that club she named John B. Stone, and when asked to give the committee her knowledge of his activities stated that he had been active within the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill, and stated that, “I know Rob Hall suggested him for membership due to his activity with the Progressive Party.”
Was Mr. Stone active in the Progressive Party in Montana, when you knew him there?
Mr. O’Connell. Of course the Progressive Party—Mr. Stone was in Montana in the late twenties and early thirties and so on, when he might have been identified with the old Progressive Party of Bob La Follette and Senator Wheeler.
Mr. Tavenner. Was he active in the Progressive Party in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Scherer. I want to ask the witness the same questions I did about Silberstein. When did you last see Stone?
Mr. O’Connell. I think the last time I saw Stone was in 1948.
Mr. Scherer. Where was that?
Mr. O’Connell. That was here in Washington, D. C.
Mr. Scherer. In connection with what activities?
Mr. O’Connell. Doing press work for the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill.
Mr. Scherer. Is that the last contact you had with him?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes. I had no—that was the last contact and the only contact I have had with him outside of the fact that when he lived out in Montana and because of my political activity and prominence out there, I knew him at that time.
I was just wondering when he became—when Rob Hall nominated him for membership or whatever he did—does she date that any time?
Mr. Tavenner. Her membership in the party was from 1943 to 1949, so it would be within the limits of that period.
Mr. O’Connell. I got the impression from what you said that he was recommended because of the work he had done in the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill.
Mr. Tavenner. No; I may not have stated that clearly. I would like to restate it.
When Mrs. Markward was asked as to her knowledge of Stone’s activities within the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill, she testified: “I know Robert Hall suggested him for membership”—that meant membership in the Communist Party—“due to his activity with the Progressive Party.”
Mr. O’Connell. The Progressive Party wasn’t organized until 1948.
Mr. Tavenner. That would indicate that it must then have been about 1948 or 1949 when this occurred.
Mr. O’Connell. My distinct feeling—I don’t know what he may have done, but my distinct feeling about Mr. Stone is he was not a member of the Communist Party as long as I knew him.
Mr. Scherer. Do you know what Stone is doing today?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I really don’t.
Mr. Scherer. The last contact you had with him then was, as you said, 1949?
Mr. O’Connell. I would say, I think the last contact I had with him was in 1948.
Mr. Scherer. Do you know what his activities were following 1948?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I really don’t. I haven’t kept up with him. I think—well, I know at the time he was writing some stories, children’s stories, or something of that kind. He was talking about it.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you select Stone as the publicity man for the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. I probably had more to do with his selection than anybody because of course I knew him as a newspaperman.
Mr. Tavenner. How many persons normally composed the staff of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. Actually in 1948 the only ones outside of Mr. Silberstein, Mr. Waybur, and one or two of those people on the letterhead, if they were in town and would come to the meeting, the actual people working in the office were Mr. Stone and myself and a stenographer.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you have more than one stenographer at a time, usually?
Mr. O’Connell. I think when the situation, as far as the legislation was concerned, was critical we may have had additional stenographers to help get out additional material.
Mr. Tavenner. Was Rose Clinton ever a member of your staff?
Mr. O’Connell. Not to my knowledge. I don’t know anybody by the name of “Rose Clinton.”
Mr. Tavenner. The quarterly statement submitted by you for the period ended June 30, 1949, filed July 9, 1949, reveals that she was employed by your committee.
Mr. O’Connell. If she were, I certainly don’t recollect or remember her. She was probably an ordinary stenographer. Her name means—I have no recollection, and it means nothing to me.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you any recollection of her?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I can’t, I think—does it show she was a stenographer there?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes; shows she was paid a salary of $250 for the month of June.
Mr. O’Connell. I can’t remember. There could have been. I remember one little girl there and the name I remember is Marjorie. I think her first name was Marjorie. I don’t know if that was in the 1948 period or the 1950.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should also show that according to the testimony of Mrs. Mary Markward, Rose Clinton was known to her as a member of the Communist Party in the District of Columbia and assigned to the Northeast Club of the Communist Party in this city.
In the course of her testimony Mrs. Markward said:
Rose Clinton, I believe she was active in the Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill in 1949.
Mr. O’Connell. I wasn’t in the city of Washington in 1949 in connection with the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill.
Mr. Tavenner. However, were you not chairman for the National Committee to Defeat the Mundt Bill during that period?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. You signed quarterly reports showing who were employed and the amounts of salaries paid?
Mr. O’Connell. I am pretty sure the reports were sent to me in Montana in 1949, and I signed them.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with a person named Tom Buchanan?
Mr. O’Connell. I think he did the presswork for the committee in 1950.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you employ him?
Mr. O’Connell. No. When I came down here in 1950 he had already been employed by Mr. Waybur or Mr. Silberstein; I don’t know which. I think, wasn’t he a reporter, had been a reporter for the Washington Star?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes; he was until he was removed from that position. Did you know Tom Buchanan to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I did not.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should also show that Tom Buchanan was identified in the testimony of Mrs. Mary Stalcup Markward as an ex-Washington newspaperman assigned to the Youth Club of the Communist Party when he became a member of the Communist Party in Washington, D. C.
Later he was transferred to the Newspaper Club of the Communist Party in Washington and since that time has been an employee of the Civil Rights Congress in Washington.
Mr. O’Connell. Does it state when he became a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain that it does. I do not have her testimony with me. But I am not certain as to the number of years of Communist Party membership before he was assigned to the Newspaper Club of the Communist Party.
Was Ruth Rifkin an employee of your committee?
Mr. O’Connell. I can’t remember now. The name doesn’t—wasn’t she a notary public?
Mr. Tavenner. She could have been a notary public.
Mr. O’Connell. Didn’t she run in addition to being a notary public, didn’t she run a mimeograph shop or something of that kind? That is the recollection that I have.
Mr. Tavenner. According to your report covering the period of April 1950 she was employed in a secretarial capacity. She was paid for secretarial services.
Mr. O’Connell. I think she ran a secretarial service shop and did mimeographing and so on. That is my recollection.
Mr. Tavenner. How was she employed by you?
Mr. O’Connell. I think we took particular materials to her sometimes to dictate and then to have her run off on mimeograph.
Mr. Tavenner. Was she known to you to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. No, she was not.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I would like for the record to show Mary Stalcup Markward in the course of her testimony before this committee also identified Ruth Rifkin as a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Willis. Was she assigned or had anything to do with the Newspaper Club of the Communist Party?
Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. I am certain she was not, but I would like to turn to that testimony, if I can locate it. I think it important to read that testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Willis. I asked that question because the witness identified her as some kind of a secretarial service or mimeographing service.
Mr. O’Connell. My only recollection about her was that her shop was close to the Lawyers Guild office there and she did secretarial work and got out mimeographing and my connection with her was of course completely mechanical.
Mr. Tavenner. Who selected her for the performance of their work?
Mr. O’Connell. I would imagine Mr. Silberstein told me she did that kind of work and where her office was and where her shop was.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Elizabeth Sasuly?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, I was.
Mr. Tavenner. Was she employed by the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. I am pretty sure she was. I think she was employed both in—well, I couldn’t say whether she was employed both in 1948 and 1950 or just in 1948, or just in 1950, but my recollection is she was employed both of the times I was down here in 1948 and in 1950.
Mr. Tavenner. Was she known to you to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I had no knowledge that she was a member of the Communist Party or not.
Mr. Tavenner. I think the record should show Elizabeth Sasuly appeared before this committee on July 12, 1949, at which time she refused to answer any and all questions put to her by the committee pertaining to her membership in the Communist Party or any questions relating to Communist Party activities in the city of Washington.
Mr. Willis. In light of that I think it is important for the witness to try to refresh his memory as to whether she was in fact employed on his return to Washington in 1950 or do the payroll records so indicate?
Mr. O’Connell. Of course, Congressman, also I had no knowledge she was before the committee.
Mr. Willis. I am not implying it. I want to be fair with you. You are a lawyer and you can see the point.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Possibly I can clear that up from reference to the records. The report covering the second quarter of 1950 by you to the House of Representatives shows that in April 1950 Elizabeth Sasuly was paid salary and expenses of $359.89. Does that refresh your recollection?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes. My recollection, I knew she was employed by the committee, but I wasn’t sure which year, whether it was in 1948 or 1950 or whether it was both of those years, as a matter of fact. But, I again, I repeat that I had no knowledge that she was or was not a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Returning now to Ruth Rifkin——
Mr. O’Connell. If I remember correctly, was Miss Sasuly cited for contempt?
Mr. Tavenner. No.
Mrs. Markward was asked the question:
Are you acquainted with an individual by the name of Ruth Rifkin?
To which she replied: “Yes.”
She was asked the question:
What was the nature of your relationship with Ruth Rifkin?
And Mrs. Markward testified as follows:
I got a transfer card from this individual together with a note saying if I contact her I was to say I was Evelyn’s cousin. I believe she was living at McLean Gardens at that time. I called and made an appointment to meet her. She was quite cautious about the way this meeting should take place. We met at Union Station and had dinner later. I learned later she was working for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.
“Question. Where did she come from?
“Mrs. Markward. New York.
“Question. What was the purpose of your contacting her?
“Mrs. Markward. I contacted her as Evelyn’s cousin.
“Question. Did you pick her up on your rolls?
“Mrs. Markward. Because of her working with the UNRRA in the State Department, I could not transfer her in our organization as such. However, I talked to her. She seemed extremely capable and a good Communist. So I spoke to Elizabeth Searle about seeing if she could be picked up by some organization that did take members working for the Government and Elizabeth Searle took the address and how to get in touch with her and said she would see what could be done.
“Question. Did you subsequently see Ruth Rifkin?
“Mrs. Markward. Yes. She seemed disturbed by the manner in which she had been contacted and she asked if this other person was all right. I went to Elizabeth Searle about this and she said it was all right because this other person was in a position that it would be assumed she was calling about union business. Ruth Rifkin and I had dinner together at the time we had this conversation. Ruth Rifkin told me she was not in a position with UNRRA that she wanted to seem identified with a union. Elizabeth Searle told me to tell her not to call and talk to me over the telephone, so I had no further contact with her.”
That is the testimony relating to her.
Mr. O’Connell. Now I want to clarify—was she with UNRRA?
Mr. Tavenner. According to the testimony of Mrs. Markward she was.
Mr. O’Connell. When?
Mr. Tavenner. In the State Department.
Mr. O’Connell. I think UNRRA had been, I think it had actually been discontinued by 1948.
Mr. Tavenner. Suppose it was discontinued.
Mr. O’Connell. What I want to point out is that my relationship with her is I brought her material to transcribe or to mimeograph and so on. My recollection is she was running a secretarial shop.
Mr. Tavenner. Which of course was a period after UNRRA had been disbanded.
Mr. O’Connell. What I wanted to make clear is I had no connection with her while she was a Government employee.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, where did the committee have its printing done?
Mr. O’Connell. I really couldn’t recollect.
Mr. Tavenner. Was it the Superior Print Shop?
Mr. O’Connell. I am sure we have it in the report there.
Mr. Tavenner. Your report so says.
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Who was the owner of the Superior Print Shop?
Mr. O’Connell. I really don’t know.
Mr. Tavenner. Who made the arrangements for the Superior Print Shop to do the printing for your committee?
Mr. O’Connell. I just couldn’t recollect who actually did it. I would imagine the stenographer in the office called them to come and said we had certain printing to do or something of that kind. I wasn’t acquainted, I wasn’t in Washington, D. C., with the various printing houses and my actual work with the committee was largely on the Hill. I was rarely in the office. I was out here contacting Members of the House and Members of the Senate.
Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Markward in her testimony advised the committee that the operator of the Superior Print Shop was Tilla Minowitz, and she identified Tilla Minowitz as a member of the Communist Party and as a member of the Community Club of the Communist Party in Washington, D. C.
Tilla Minowitz was subpenaed before this committee on July 6, 1949, and refused to answer any and all questions put to her by the committee dealing with her membership in the Communist Party.
Mr. Willis. When was that?
Mr. Tavenner. July 6, 1949. The report covering June 1949 shows the payment of a bill for printing in the amount of $195 and the report covering March 1950 shows the printing of letterheads and stationery on March 30, 1950.
Were you aware at that time that Tilla Minowitz had been identified and had been brought before this committee and questioned regarding her Communist Party identification?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I don’t know Tilla Minowitz, I don’t think I have ever seen her in my life and the name means absolutely nothing to me. The printing went to Superior Printing Co.
Mr. Tavenner. You knew she was doing the printing for your company because you signed these reports.
Mr. O’Connell. I didn’t know it was Tilla Minowitz. I knew it was the Superior Printing Co.
Mr. Tavenner. Did your committee ever employ the firm of Presentation, Inc.?
Mr. Willis. What?
Mr. Tavenner. Presentation, Inc.
Mr. O’Connell. I can’t recall. If I could see the report—What does Presentation, Inc., do?
Mr. Tavenner. We find a report covering June 22, 1949, which says—
Presentation, Inc., 2118 Massachusetts Avenue NW., 25,000 pamphlets, $785.46—
as one of the items. Does that help you to refresh your recollection?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, I said before, in 1949 I was not down in Washington. Those reports were sent out to me to be signed as chairman, and I don’t know Presentation, Inc. I don’t know what they do, but that report was made up.
Mr. Tavenner. Another bill in June and September of 1949 is for printing, done by Presentation, Inc., and the amount of the bill is $1,075.38. Who selected Presentation, Inc., for this work?
Mr. O’Connell. I really wouldn’t know. I don’t know who did it.
Mr. Tavenner. Notwithstanding your having signed the reports covering those employments in 1949 when you say you were not actually in Washington, we find in April of 1950 another printing of pamphlets on the Mundt bill was done by Presentation, Inc., for which there was a charge of $300.
At that time did you know that a person by the name of Carl Marzani, an official of that corporation, was under sentence of the United States district court after having been convicted for concealing his Communist Party affiliations while an employee of the Federal Government?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I didn’t know that. In fact, I didn’t know Presentation, Inc., and didn’t know anybody who was identified with it.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, is it not a fact that during the period that the Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill used the offices of the National Lawyers Guild, it also used the National Lawyers Guild telephone, bearing number District 3205, to which both telegrams and telephone tolls were charged to the National Lawyers Guild?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; but with an understanding, as I remember, that whatever expenditure was made on the telephone or telegraph was to be paid by the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you reimburse the National Lawyers Guild in full?
Mr. O’Connell. I really don’t know. I went home directly after the adjournment of Congress in September of 1950 and what disposition was made after I left of those bills and so on by Mr. Waybur, I don’t know.
Mr. Tavenner. You say you don’t know?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know. As I said, my principal work was always up here on the Hill. I usually came up in the mornings about 10 o’clock or 9:30 or so and was up here until either adjournment of Congress or later, and so on, each day that I was here.
Mr. Tavenner. Did Lillian Clott perform any services for the National Lawyers Guild while you occupied its offices as chairman for the committee to defeat the Mundt bill?
Mr. O’Connell. I can’t recall. I know Lillian Clott and all that, but I can’t recall whether she did or not.
Mr. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which you became acquainted with Lillian Clott?
Mr. O’Connell. As I remember, first of all her husband or ex-husband, Herman Clott, is I think legislative representative here for the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and I knew him and I think through him I was introduced to her. I think she later worked, if I remember correctly, with the United Electrical Workers.
Mr. Tavenner. Yes; and prior to that time didn’t she work in one of the Embassies here in Washington?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know. I wouldn’t know whether she did or not. When I came here Mr. Waybur, of course, was identified with, I think he was legislative representative from the United Electrical Workers and I went there lots of times to pick up my check and she was working in the office there, and I think Senator Wheeler’s daughter was also working there, Frances Wheeler, and she introduced me to her.
Mr. Tavenner. Did she do any work at any time for the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t remember that she did.
Mr. Tavenner. Was Lillian Clott known to you to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. I didn’t know that she was or was not.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show that Mary Stalcup Markward in the course of her testimony identified Lillian Clott as a member of the Community Club of the Communist Party in the District of Columbia, and that when called as a witness before this committee in September 1954, in Dayton, Ohio, Lillian Clott refused to testify regarding her alleged Communist Party membership on the ground that to do so might tend to incriminate her.
Mr. Willis. Let’s take an informal recess.
(Brief recess.)
Mr. Willis. The committee will come to order.
You may proceed, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, are you familiar with the testimony of Matthew Cvetic before this committee, relating to the activities of the Communist Party in the western part of Pennsylvania in connection with the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I am not acquainted with that testimony.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Matthew Cvetic became a member of the Communist Party at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and after working quite a number of years for the Federal Bureau of Investigation within the Communist Party, withdrew and testified fully before this committee regarding his experience within the Communist Party.
Mr. Cvetic testified that the District Committee of the Communist Party of western Pennsylvania established a branch or a unit of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill. This branch or unit occupied no office of its own but worked out of the offices of the Communist Party of western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh.
Mr. Cvetic further testified that petitions and pamphlets published by the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill were made available in Pittsburgh for distribution by Communist Party headquarters. He personally participated in the distribution of petitions and pamphlets published by the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill at the instruction of the Communist Party functionaries in Pittsburgh.
Mr. Cvetic also testified that the officials of the Communist Party in western Pennsylvania referred to the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill as “One of our organizations.”
Mr. Cvetic revealed that the strategy and planning of the fight against the Mundt-Nixon bill in Pittsburgh was headed by the district organizer of the Communist Party. These plans were carried out by the Communist Party District Committee through the various trade unions, front organizations, Progressive Party, and other organizations which had been created or captured by the Communist Party in western Pennsylvania.
Did you confer at any time with any one from Pittsburgh with reference to the strategy and planning of the fight against the Mundt bill in that area?
Mr. O’Connell. No, sir, I did not. You mean by that a personal conference with somebody from there?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes.
Mr. O’Connell. No, I did not.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you aware of the fact that it was the Communist Party in that area which led and headed the fight against the Mundt bill in connection with the program of the National Committee To Defeat the Mundt Bill.
Mr. O’Connell. No, I was not aware of that. I think as far as the western area was concerned, I think the only contact we had was with Alexander Wright, who was I think executive secretary of the Progressive Party out there and I never talked with him personally.
I think he corresponded with the committee or sent some communication and we in turn sent a wire or material to him but I don’t remember any contact with anybody else.
Mr. Tavenner. Was he known to you to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. No, he was not. In fact, I don’t know him. I have never even met him. Whatever communication we had was by mail or by wire, as I remember. I don’t know him at all.
Mr. Tavenner. He was identified by Matthew Cvetic as an active member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Willis. Alexander Wright?
Mr. Tavenner. Alexander Wright, W-r-i-g-h-t.
Mr. O’Connell. Communication by the committee was as executive secretary of the Progressive Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. O’Connell, that the situation which Mr. Cvetic described in Pittsburgh with reference to the strategy and planning by the Communist Party for the fight against the Mundt-Nixon bill was duplicated in many instances and many places throughout the United States?
Mr. O’Connell. As I said, my work was here in Washington and what actually took place, either in Pittsburgh or any other section of the country, I wouldn’t know. Certainly my guess would be and certainly my feeling would be that inasmuch as the legislation was proscribing the Communist Party and affecting it, they certainly worked on it and certainly did what they could to defeat it. I have no doubt about that.
Mr. Tavenner. Was the Progressive Party in the State of Washington active in promoting the fight against the passage of the Mundt bill?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. Wasn’t a good part of the leadership of the Progressive Party in the State of Washington of Communist Party membership?
Mr. O’Connell. As far as the leadership of the Progressive Party was concerned, as I stated yesterday, Mr. Russell Fluent was the chairman; he was at the time of his chairmanship Democratic State treasurer in the State of Washington; I feel sure was not a member of the Communist Party; Mr. L. C. Hunterer was national committeeman; he was Democratic sheriff in Olympia in Thurston County and I am sure was not a member of the Communist Party.
I think at one time he used to be—out in the Western States we have Old Greenbacks and Old Populace and former followers of the Progressive Party under Bob La Follette, but Mr. Hunterer was not. Elsie Hoffman, who was national committeewoman, was president of the Democratic Women’s Club in the city of Spokane, and I am sure was not a Communist.
Mr. Tavenner. What about Tom Rabbitt?
Mr. O’Connell. Tom Rabbitt worked for a short time in the Progressive Party, I would say from probably April of maybe—I would say latter part of March or early part of April 1948 until latter part of May of 1948.
Mr. Tavenner. What about William J. Pennock?
Mr. O’Connell. I am pretty sure that—well, Mr. Pennock had no office in the Progressive Party. I think he was a member of the executive committee. We had a very, very large executive committee, and I think he was a member of the executive committee.
Mr. Tavenner. What about John Daschbach?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t remember any Progressive Party in activity in my time on the part of John Daschbach.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, will you tell the committee what action the Communist Party took in protesting to Judge Medina during the trial of the 11 Communists under the provisions of the Smith Act in Foley Square, New York?
Mr. O’Connell. Outside of what was in the ordinary press notices, I mean of my own knowledge, I don’t know anything. I read about the trial and so on, but of my own knowledge I don’t know anything.
Mr. Tavenner. Did the leadership of the Progressive Party in the State of Washington take any active part in protesting to Judge Medina regarding the trial of the 11 Communists?
Mr. O’Connell. When was that trial?
Mr. Tavenner. The trial was in 1949; I think the first motion of the trial was disposed of in the spring of 1949 before they began the trial on its merits.
Mr. O’Connell. I wouldn’t want to say categorically one way or the other what action might have been taken by the Progressive Party in the State of Washington in that connection. I can’t recall anything right now.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you as executive secretary have any part in the activity?
Mr. O’Connell. I can’t remember any.
Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of the June 6, 1949, issue of the Daily Worker and call your attention to an article entitled “Men of Labor and Civic Leaders Throughout Nation Voice Indignation,” and I ask if you see in that article a reference to the fact that Henry Huff, chairman, and Clayton Van Lydegraf, secretary of the Washington State Communist Party, having wired Dennis in connection with those trials. Do you see that paragraph?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; I see that paragraph.
Mr. Tavenner. The subject of the wire is quoted as follows:
The northwest district is proud and inspired by the splendid fight the defendants are making against the biased conduct and vicious rulings of Judge Medina who is acting as prosecutor at Foley Square. The jailing of John Gates, Gus Hall, and Henry Winston has shocked and aroused our party and the massed forces to a new fighting pitch and widespread protest action.
Will you examine the article again, please, and state whether just above the paragraph pointed out to you there is the description of a telegram sent by Russell Fluent, chairman, and Jerry O’Connell, executive secretary of the Progressive Party to Judge Medina. Do you see it?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, I see that.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you read it into the record, please?
Mr. O’Connell (reading):
Russell Fluent, chairman, and Jerry O’Connell, executive secretary of the Progressive Party, wired Medina “Thousands of members are shocked at your willful, unlawful, and unconstitutional attempt to deny any defense to the Communist Party leaders now on trial.”
Mr. Willis. That was sent by whom to whom?
Mr. O’Connell. This paper——
Mr. Willis. Alleged to have been sent by whom to whom? What does the paper say?
Mr. O’Connell. The paper says:
Russell Fluent, chairman, and Jerry O’Connell, executive secretary of the Progressive Party wired Medina “Thousands of members shocked at your willful, unlawful, and unconstitutional attempt to deny any defense to the Communist Party leaders now on trial.”
Mr. Tavenner. Did you send that wire?
Mr. O’Connell. I can’t remember sending any such wire.
Mr. Tavenner. Would you state in view of the report of the Daily Worker that the wire was not sent?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, I just have no recollection of sending that wire, myself sending it. It is a long time ago and I don’t know who wrote that story or how it was acquired or anything. I can’t remember. I just can’t remember sending any wire in that connection.
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked “O’Connell Exhibit No. 5” for identification purposes only, and to be made a part of the committee files.
Mr. Willis. It is so ordered.
Mr. O’Connell. I might say your showing me this paper is the first time that has ever been called to my attention.
Mr. Tavenner. The sending of this telegram to Judge Medina was not the first occasion you have publicly come to the support of the Communist Party, is it?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, I wouldn’t want to say that I came to the support of the Communist Party. As a progressive American, I believe that all people regardless of their political opinions and beliefs are entitled to their political rights and civil liberties, whether they be Communists or not.
Mr. Tavenner. According to your statement, do you consider that the Communist Party is a political party?
Mr. O’Connell. As far as my information is concerned, I know there are findings by the Congress that it is not, but——
Mr. Tavenner. And also by the courts?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t recall any by the courts. I can’t recall any case by the courts. Cases I can recall hold otherwise.
Mr. Scherer. There are court cases.
Mr. O’Connell. Well, I don’t want to argue about it. The thing is that as an American I feel that all people, regardless of their political opinions or beliefs, whether they are Communist or non-Communists, are entitled to their rights to their political opinions and beliefs and to their civil rights and to their civil liberties as provided by our Constitution. I say that as a progressive American who really honestly and sincerely believes it.
Mr. Scherer. I think we all believe that.
Mr. O’Connell. I didn’t get you, Congressman.
Mr. Scherer. I said I think we all believe in the statement you made.
Mr. O’Connell. I was just expressing—that is my position on it. I just think it is dangerous to proscribe——
Mr. Tavenner. You undertook in this telegram to accuse the judge of willful, unlawful, and unconstitutional attempt to deny the Communist Party leaders any defense.
Mr. O’Connell. As I said, I don’t remember sending that wire.
Mr. Scherer. Do you deny it?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, Congressman, I can’t say. I just don’t have any recollection of sending that wire, and I am saying that honestly and truthfully. I did think, and I still do think, that Judge Medina did restrict their defense at the trial.
Mr. Scherer. We have had some of the lawyers who appeared before Judge Medina in that trial appear before this committee, and I am just wondering how Judge Medina withstood the assault that was made upon him, not only by those lawyers but by telegrams such as the counsel has just read, which, of course, I believe you sent.
Mr. O’Connell. Congressman, I really——
Mr. Scherer. I think that was an attack on our judicial system that was a disgrace by those who participated in it.
Mr. O’Connell. As I have said, I really don’t remember sending any such wire, and this is the first time that has ever been called to my attention.
Mr. Scherer. The Communists and their followers talk about persecution. If ever a fine jurist was persecuted for attempting to do his job, as he was required to do by law, Judge Medina was so persecuted and smeared.
Mr. O’Connell. I have not condoned the conduct of the attorneys who were present at that trial.
Mr. Scherer. I understand that.
Mr. O’Connell. I think—you have been here most of the time or a considerable part of the time I testified.
Mr. Scherer. I might say your conduct has been exemplary, you have been very respectful and we certainly have no complaint. You have used, I am not criticizing you for it, what is used regularly in matters such as this, namely, the convenient and overworked answers, “I don’t remember” and “not to my recollection, et cetera.”
Mr. O’Connell. These things happened some 5 and 6 and 7 years ago and it is not easy and all of these people are actually strangers to me and all that. I came down here as a former Congressman, as a political figure in the Democratic Party in my own right and so on, I came here with a true and honest and firm belief in my opposition to the Mundt bill at that time. I think that it was wrong and I think it is wrong now.
Mr. Scherer. I do not want anything I have said to appear as a criticism of you. As I said, I think you have been very polite and very respectful, but I think when certain statements are made it is incumbent upon members of the committee to comment upon those statements and clear the record.
Mr. O’Connell. I have been a Member of the House, sir, and I have full respect for the committee and I realize, I have sat up there and I have made my comments too as witnesses have testified.
Mr. Scherer. Have you been given every opportunity to make explanations to answers you gave?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Scherer. I think that the members of the committee, then, have a right of course to comment upon statements you have made, the same as you have that privilege.
Mr. O’Connell. I have no complaint. I have been treated very fairly and respectfully and everything, I have made no complaint and I am doing my very level honest best to do a good job to answer the questions as they are given to me.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall having spoken to the legislative conference of the Freedom Crusade Congress of the Civil Right Congress on the question of the indictment of the 12 Communist leaders?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t know what that Freedom Crusade is. Where was that supposed to be?
Mr. Tavenner. In Washington.
Mr. O’Connell. State of Washington?
Mr. Tavenner. No. It was in Washington, D. C. According to the Daily Worker of January 13, 1949, we find an article entitled “Congressman To Address Crusade,” this paragraph:
The final panel on persecuted political minorities based on the indictments of the 12 Communist leaders will be discussed by Marcantonio, Dr. W. E. B. DuBois, and former Montana Congressman Jerry O’Connell.
Do you recall whether you did speak?
Mr. O’Connell. I am positive I did not. I have never met DuBois, never met him in my life. I have never been involved with him. Marc I know real well.
Mr. Scherer. Do I understand you to say you don’t recall whether you made the speech?
Mr. O’Connell. I am positive I never spoke at any such panel. Because I——
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall having agreed to appear on that program?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I surely don’t.
Mr. Scherer. Is that the Daily Worker?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scherer. Do you mean the Daily Worker can be wrong?
Mr. O’Connell. The reason I feel positive about that is I do not know Dr. DuBois, I have never met him, and I don’t know him at all, and I know I was not on any panel where he talked. I know I didn’t do that. Marc of course I knew real well, but I certainly don’t remember speaking any place with Marc. I knew him.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you speak, regardless of who accompanied you, on a program sponsored by the Freedom Crusade Congress?
Mr. O’Connell. What date was that?
Mr. Tavenner. In January 1949.
Mr. O’Connell. I am positive I did not.
The other reason I feel sure about that is I left the State of Washington in October 1949, and I went back to Montana, and I know during that particular period I was in the State of Montana and my wife and I were living with her folks in Great Falls. I know my financial circumstances at that time were very slim and that I am sure, I am just positive that I never spoke at any such panel at that time.
Mr. Tavenner. A report is made by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities that the Daily Worker issue of June 23, 1937, page 1, carried a letter addressed by you to David Leeds, business manager of the Daily Worker, official organ of the Communist Party, in which you state:
I feel that the Daily Worker is America’s outstanding daily labor paper and has done much during these past crucial labor years to bring true and accurate accounts of labor conditions throughout the entire country to the attention of the people.
Did you write such a letter?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, I wrote such a letter.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you a subscriber to the Daily Worker?
Mr. O’Connell. No; I don’t think—I was a Member of Congress at that time and the Daily Worker was delivered like a lot of other newspapers are to my office. My particular recollection of that—that is 1937—was that a man by the name of Paddy King was an avowed Communist in the State of Montana and is quite a familiar character around there came to my office and asked me if I would do this and I think I told him I would confine it strictly to the labor coverage of what the Daily Worker was doing, coverage on labor, on strikes, on labor’s rights, and so on. I wrote the letter at that time.
Mr. Scherer. Was what you said in 1937 true about the Daily Worker?
Mr. O’Connell. That was written in 1937.
Mr. Scherer. 1937. It surely has changed since I became acquainted with it. I have just been reading the account of some of the hearings we had in Newark a couple of weeks ago.
Mr. O’Connell. A lot of things have changed since 1937.
Mr. Scherer. I said if what you stated in 1937 was true about it, the paper surely has changed since my acquaintance with it.
Mr. O’Connell. You will remember that was the period in which the CIO was beginning to organize and there was considerable, we had the little steel strike, we had Memorial Day massacre at Republic Steel near Chicago; there were many things happening in the labor situation at that time, and in my opinion the Daily Worker covered them better and did a better job than any other paper I knew of.
Mr. Tavenner. You knew of course that the Daily Worker was the official organ of the Communist Party, and that it was required to be read by all Communist Party members in order to ascertain the directives that were being issued by the Communist Party.
Mr. O’Connell. I knew that it was the organ of the Communist Party but whether or not the members were required to do it, I was not a Communist, I didn’t know.
Mr. Tavenner. Why did you desire to give aid to the Communist Party by writing such a highly commendatory article to be printed in the Daily Worker?
Mr. O’Connell. I was dealing with the paper as such and particularly with its labor coverage as such. I think I confined my letter to that particular phase of the coverage that the Daily Worker did. There was no intent on my part to give aid or support to the Communist Party or anything——
Mr. Tavenner. Was it your purpose to get aid or support for yourself from the Communist Party?
Mr. O’Connell. No, not aid and support from the Communist Party. I lived in western Montana and I was a Congressman from western Montana where we had a very, very militant tradition out there as far as labor was concerned. In that particular period and of course during the depression and at other times, labor leaders had been hanged out there, one labor leader was hanged to a railroad trestle——
Mr. Tavenner. What has that to do with the question I asked?
Mr. O’Connell. What I am trying to point out is that I lived in a district, that I represented a district where there were a lot of militant labor leaders who read the Daily Worker, who actually, many of them I know, were not Communists, there wasn’t any particular fear—there might have been 30 or 37 Communists in the whole State, nobody was ever bothered about them, nobody was afraid of them. As a politician they came to see me and talk with me, they came to other politicians there.
Mr. Tavenner. Communists?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes. I can remember—in the 33d—in the 33d Legislature of Montana the Communist Party came and talked to the legislative assembly while the legislature was assembled and all that on the conditions that existed in the State at the time. There wasn’t any, I am trying to put you in the pattern and in the spirit and in the situation that existed in that day. We weren’t worried about them, we weren’t afraid of them at all. We let them speak their piece, we let them say the things they wanted to say, if they had any contribution to make, to make it, and so on.
That is the attitude and that was not only true of them. We had heavy Socialist following, the Socialist Party out there, Norman Thomas had decidedly strong feeling, in fact strong support out there and carried some of the counties in the State of Montana particularly in my district in the 1932 election.
What I am trying to do is put you in the mind and in the spirit that existed as far as I was concerned at that particular time. For instance, today I wouldn’t write that kind of a letter to the Daily Worker.
Mr. Tavenner. Did the same condition exist in Seattle, Wash., which you have described?
Mr. O’Connell. In the State of Washington you had about the same situation, in the history of the State there was——
Mr. Tavenner. Let me ask you this question: Did members of the Communist Party in Seattle come to you as secretary of the Progressive Party to discuss Communist Party problems with you?
Mr. O’Connell. No; not to discuss Communist Party problems as such, both while I was executive secretary of the Democratic Party and executive secretary of the Progressive Party I can remember Mr. Henry P. Huff and Mr. Van Lydegraf, I think there was a Mr. Remes, and others who came to the Democratic Party office and to the Progressive Party Office and made certain representations about support of the legislation they were interested in, matters that they were taking a position in, and so on. I talked with them.
Mr. Tavenner. Did that also include Tom Rabbitt and William Pennock?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, in my time out there Rabbitt and Pennock had never been identified or identified themselves as members of the Communist Party. As I told you, Rabbitt was Democratic State senator, Pennock was Democratic State representative and their dealings with me, they were delegates to the Democratic Central Committee in King County and their dealings with me were, as far as I knew, and ostensibly they dealt with me as members of the Democratic party.
Mr. Tavenner. We have spoken of the Daily Worker. You say you were not a subscriber. Were you a subscriber to the Daily People’s World?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t think I ever subscribed to the People’s World. I got the New World. I was a subscriber to the New World and to the Washington New Dealer.
Mr. Tavenner. You were acquainted, were you not, with a paper published in Chicago by the name of Midwest Daily Record?
Mr. O’Connell. I can’t remember the Midwest Daily Record. When was that published?
Mr. Tavenner. In the thirties. Do you recall having written a letter to the Daily Worker or made a public pronouncement recommending the publication of that paper?
Mr. O’Connell. No, I don’t. Was it a Communist newspaper?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, it was.
Mr. O’Connell. Did it exist any time? Did it last any time?
Mr. Tavenner. Not for a long period. I don’t know the period it existed. As I understand, you do not recall anything about that paper?
Mr. O’Connell. I honestly can’t remember anything about it. I didn’t even know it existed as far as I can remember. When I was down here in Congress there were a lot of newspapers and I am trying to think of some of them. A lot of them came in.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. O’Connell, were you acquainted with John T. Bernard, former Member of Congress?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, sir; I was a Member of the House in the 75th Congress with Mr. Bernard and I have seen him on several occasions since that time and I am acquainted with Mr. Bernard.
Mr. Tavenner. I have before me the January 8, 1938, issue of the Daily Worker carrying an article entitled “‘I Am for the Loyalists and China,’ Police Captain Declares at Lincoln Vets Trial.” The last paragraph of this article states as follows:
A dinner in honor of Robert Raven was given by the friends of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade last night at the Aldine Club, 200 Fifth Avenue. Congressman John T. Bernard, Farmer-Laborite of Minnesota, paid tribute to the heroic death of Raven, and gave some account of his experiences while visiting Spanish battle-grounds with Jerry O’Connell, Congressman of Montana. Other speakers were Steve Nelson. * * *
Did you accompany John T. Bernard to the Spanish battlefields?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. When were you in Spain and for what period of time?
Mr. O’Connell. You are really getting into ancient history. My best recollection was that we were in Spain, I would say sometime in the month of October 1938 or maybe the latter part of October or early November 1938, somewhere in that period.
Mr. Tavenner. How long were you there?
Mr. O’Connell. I would say about 3 weeks.
Mr. Tavenner. As part of your experience there, did you and Mr. Bernard take part in the review of the American Brigade, Anglo-American Brigade, on the occasion of the celebration of the anniversary of the Russian Revolution? Do you recall reviewing the troops?
Mr. O’Connell. I remember reviewing the troops but not in connection with any celebration of the Russian Revolution. As I remember, the only troops we reviewed were troops that came up when there was a change of command. The command of the brigade was to be taken over by somebody, I can’t remember who they were now, but certainly not in connection with any celebration of the Soviet Revolution. At least I certainly was not informed that that was the case. I had been active, while I was a Member of Congress, before I went to Spain I was very decidedly and very specifically on the side of the Spanish Republic, I did everything I could to promote American policy to help and to aid the Spanish Loyalists. They were the legally elected government of Spain, they were being attacked by Hitler and Mussolini as I saw it, and in my opinion it was the beginning, in fact the first battlefield of World War II.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, who invited you and the circumstances under which you made the trip?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, earlier in that year a group of Congressmen in the 75th Congress, we had a group of Congressmen known as the liberal bloc of Congress headed by Maury Maverick of Texas. The newspapers described us as all fairly young. I was only 27 at the time. We were described as Young Turks and out of that liberal bloc a group of us, 5 or 6 or maybe 4 or 5, went to see Secretary of State Cordell Hull in connection with the Spanish situation and also legislation which was pending with reference to invoking the Neutrality Act as it existed at that time against Germany and Italy for their intervention in Spain, and Mr. Hull told us as far as this Government was concerned there was actually no evidence of Spanish and German intervention or I should say German and Italian intervention.
I think I later, along with Congressman Coffee and Congressman Bernard and others, talked with David Niles, who was then executive assistant to President Roosevelt in connection with the situation. It was then suggested, I think just about the time Congress was adjourning, Mrs. O’Connell and I had been married on the 2d of January 1937, and we had had no honeymoon and were going to Europe.
My mother and father were both born in Ireland and I had always wanted to go there and we did go to Ireland, to England, France, and so on, had a reception at the Spanish Embassy, I would say probably about a month before adjournment or shortly before adjournment, Ambassador de Los Rios invited not only myself but Congressman Bernard and several other Congressmen to go to Spain and investigate what the situation was there.
Mr. Tavenner. Was he the person who extended the invitation to go to Spain?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes. He was the one. We of course took care of our own arrangements here, got our passport from the State Department—I think we were issued special passports by the State Department. Our visas were procured.
Mr. Tavenner. Was any contribution made to you for the expenses of this trip for you and your wife, either for transportation or otherwise?
Mr. O’Connell. No. We paid our own passage. I think we went over on the Queen Mary and came back on the Normandy. We paid all of our hotel expenses and we traveled by plane from Le Bourget to Croydon and paid for those. I spent about a month in Ireland where my folks were born and all those expenses were paid by me and in Spain we were the guests of the Spanish Republic and there were no expenses for hotel and transportation in Spain itself.
Our entry into Spain was expedited by the American Embassy in Paris. I think Robert Murphy was then Minister Plenipotentiary at the time and Acting Ambassador and he had Col. Steven Fuquay, who was military attaché of the American Embassy in Spain to meet us at the airport at Valencia.
Mr. Tavenner. After your return to this country, did you then become affiliated with organizations which have since been designated as front organizations relating to the Spanish problem?
Mr. O’Connell. Well, I don’t know whether you could define it as affiliated—I made speeches before many groups that were involved in the fighting in behalf of the Spanish Republic.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you become one of the sponsors of the Medical Bureau and North American Committee To Aid Spanish Democracy?
Mr. O’Connell. Right now I don’t remember whether I did, but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. I am sure I did everything I could——
Mr. Tavenner. I find your name on the letterhead of that organization on July 6, 1938. Does that refresh your recollection?
Mr. O’Connell. I haven’t seen it but if I am on there—I want to say I did everything I could to save the Spanish Republic. I felt very intensely about it. I am proud of what I did. I feel the same way about it today as I did then.
I think the position that I took as far as history was concerned was later in the establishment of the United Nations and disbarment of Franco Spain from the United Nations at least vindication of the position that I had taken. But in July of 1938 certainly that committee or that organization whose letterhead you say I am a sponsor on was not listed as a subversive organization or so described by anyone.
Mr. Tavenner. An examination of the letterhead of American Relief Ship for Spain bearing date of September 3, 1938, reflects you as one of the sponsors of this organization. Do you recall that?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t recall it but I am sure it is true. As I said, I worked every way I knew how for defeat of Franco and for the saving of the Spanish Republic.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you appear on a program of the Fourth National Congress of the American League for Peace and Democracy in Pittsburgh in November 1937?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. November 26 to 28, 1937.
Mr. O’Connell. I remember I missed the Army-Navy game. It rained and I was anxious to get to it. I remember I spoke at that meeting.
Mr. Tavenner. Was that in behalf of the Loyalist cause?
Mr. O’Connell. It was in connection with Loyalist Spain. I think there was a resolution pending in the Congress to invoke the Neutrality Act against Germany and Italy for intervention and I think also removal of the embargo which had been placed against Spain.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you from time to time appear before various meetings of the Veterans of the Lincoln Brigade, and speak on the subject of the Spanish cause?
Mr. O’Connell. I don’t remember how many times. My present recollection of that, which, of course, is some 17 or 18 years ago, is that I made 1 or 2 speeches at meetings of the Friends of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.
Mr. Tavenner. In the course of the making of those speeches did you become acquainted with Steve Nelson?
Mr. O’Connell. No, sir; I never ever met Steve Nelson; have never met Steve Nelson to this day.
Mr. Tavenner. I notice in the Daily Worker issue of July 8, 1937, that you were listed to speak along with Earl Browder and others on July 19. This was prior to your trip to Spain?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall that?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes. As I remember from the date that was the first anniversary of the beginning of the Spanish War and it was a meeting, as I remember, in Madison Square Garden and the speakers included—I know Fiorello LaGuardia spoke there. I know Norman Thomas, the candidate for the Socialist Party spoke there; a Republican Representative in Congress also spoke there. I spoke as a Democrat.
Mr. Scherer. Who was the Representative?
Mr. O’Connell. If I remember, he was from one of the New York districts, I am not too sure which.
Mr. Scherer. Do you remember his name?
Mr. O’Connell. I really don’t. The purpose of the meeting as it was outlined was to have a representative of all of the political parties speak at the meeting. Did Marcantonio speak there?
Mr. Tavenner. He is listed as one of those.
Mr. O’Connell. At that time I am pretty sure Marc was a Republican Representative or had been a Republican Representative.
Mr. Scherer. Marcantonio was a Republican Representative?
Mr. O’Connell. Yes; he was. He came to Congress as a Republican Representative.
Mr. Scherer. I understand how that happened. Was he the one you are referring to or was it somebody else?
Mr. O’Connell. I am not sure. I know there was a representative of every political party that spoke there on the Spanish situation and in favor of the Spanish Republic.
Mr. Scherer. I understand that, but might it have been Marcantonio you were referring to?
Mr. O’Connell. My remembrance is it was somebody else, but I don’t want to—I am trying to think. As a matter of fact, he was from one of the silk-stocking districts of New York, as I remember.
Mr. Willis. We will adjourn until 2 o’clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. the same day.)